RESUMEN
This study compare dosimetric parameters and secondary malignancy risk (SMN) using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for the treatment of sinonasal cancer (SC). After IRB-approval, 10 patients previously treated with IMPT for cancers of the ethmoid, sphenoid, maxillary, or frontal sinuses were identified. Dosimetrists blinded to the IMPT plans generated VMAT plans for comparison. Volume coverage and dose to organs at risk (OAR) were recorded and compared. Organ equivalent dose (OED) of tissues outside of the treatment volume was used to define the excess absolute and relative risk of SMNs. In all cases, both VMAT and IMPT provided acceptable target volume coverage and were able to meet OAR constraints. IMPT was superior for brain V10, V30, and mean, brainstem D0.01 ipsilateral cochlea V30, contralateral cochlea mean, contralateral lacrimal gland mean, contralateral parotid mean, spinal cord D0.01 and body outside of the CTV V10, V20, and V30. VMAT was superior for ipsilateral eye mean, ipsilateral lens mean, CTV V100 and maximum hotspot. The relative risk of SMNs with VMAT compared to IMPT is 3.35 (95% CI, 1.92-5.89). For the treatment of SC, IMPT spares OARs that are not immediately adjacent to the treatment volume and reduces the risk of SMNs when compared to VMAT. VMAT spares OARs abutting the target volume better than IMPT and has more homogenous target coverage. Tumors of the ethmoid sinus, benefit more from IMPT, while tumors located elsewhere require application of our findings on a case by case basis.